WASPI ‘victory’

The_Green_Hornet

jem16 said:

The_Green_Hornet said:

jem16 said:

The_Green_Hornet said:

Seems that the ombudsman has recommended Level 4 compensation of between £1,000 and £2,950.

Only for the 6 test cases though.

495. Not all women born in the 1950s will have suffered an injustice because of DWP’s maladministration in communicating State Pension age. We know, for example, some women were aware their State Pension age had changed before DWP should have begun direct mail. DWP’s research between 2000 and 2007 showed that although action was needed to improve awareness, a proportion of those affected knew their State Pension age had risen.

496. Some women would not have had opportunities to do things differently. For example, some women’s personal circumstances would have limited their opportunities to do things differently, even if they would have wanted to. Other women may not have needed to consider doing things differently because their p

Section 504 implies compensating all women born in the 1950s at the level 4 range.

504. We recognise the very significant cost to taxpayers of compensating all women affected by DWP’s maladministration. Compensating all women born in the 1950s at the level 4 range would involve spending between around £3.5 billion and £10.5 billion of public funds, though we understand not all of them will have suffered injustice. Our Principles for Remedy acknowledge that public bodies need to balance responding appropriately to people’s 90 Women’s State Pension age: our findings on injustice and associated issues complaints and acting proportionately within available resources. But they also say finite resources should not be used as an excuse for failing to provide a fair remedy. 

It does but I would guarantee compensating all at Level 4 simply will not happen. Some women only had a few months delay and compensation at that level would be more than the state pension they "lost". The Treasury would not agree to spending taxpayer's money like that.

I agree especially as the DWP has already refused to abide by the ombudsman's findings regarding compensation.

It will now end up with the Westminster politicians to argue about.

GibbsRule_No3.

If Rishi knows he is going to lose the election perhaps he won't care too much about giving WASPI the money, he won't have to find it. After all Corbyn did try the bribe last time and said he pay money and a lot of it at the time, Kier will love it, not!

michaels

GibbsRule_No3. said:

If Rishi knows he is going to lose the election perhaps he won't care too much about giving WASPI the money, he won't have to find it. After all Corbyn did try the bribe last time and said he pay money and a lot of it at the time, Kier will love it, not!

This is a good point, perhaps the govt should enact full compensation to all (despite the 'dubious' justification) as part of their poison pill for the next administration. (and it might win them a few votes)

Malthusian

GibbsRule_No3. said:

After all Corbyn did try the bribe last time and said he pay money and a lot of it at the time, Kier will love it, not!

We should remind ourselves that even Corbyn's WASPI bribe fell well short of the £50k+ per member* demanded by WASPI. I don't think Team Corbyn intended it to be a hand grenade / golden apple, but that's essentially what it was, as it created internal division in the ranks between those who wanted to support Corbyn's proposal and those who insisted on holding out for their cheques for £50k.

It didn't help that Corbyn's proposal would have been means-tested, meaning the most committed of the remaining WASPI activists wouldn't see a penny even if it had happened.

The Ombudsman's report is yet another humiliating defeat for WASPI in a very long line of them. It finds fault only with the way the changes were communicated, not the changes themselves. And we're talking about two years' delay resulting in losses of no more than £3,000.

WASPI has no way out. They can either switch to campaigning for the Ombudsman's recommendations to be adopted in some form by Parliament, which will mean all that time and effort has been wasted on a mere bagatelle (in their eyes). Or they can continue their transformation into a sovereign citizen financial cult, and carry on campaigning for their £50k cheques, which has been politically dead in the water for at least five years. 

*five years of backdated State Pension in today's money 

xylophone

• I have always considered that those affected by the 2011 Act were indeed hard done by.
  
  I have also always considered (in the light of the "Don't die of ignorance" campaign, 
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS:_Don't_Die_of_Ignorance
  
   a leaflet was sent to every home in the UK.[2][5][6][7] )
  
  
  
   that it was  open to the government to send every household a " Don't ignore increase to  state pension age" letter (or at the least to require every employer to include such a letter with employees' P60s. 
  
  That said, I do find it strange that so many women claim ignorance. Did none of them have any older  female friends or relations (mothers, even) who mentioned that they were drawing their state pension later than they had originally expected?
  
  
  
  

Malthusian

amykirk1996 said:

It is totally relevant - due to those at the time who said WASPI were not entitled to anything and were a laughing stock. They're not laughing now, are they?

No, I'm not laughing. Some might find it hilarious that WASPI have gone from swanning about on first class rail coaches promising members that their donations would result in cheques in the post from the DWP for £50k a head (2024 money), to hoping that Parliament might adopt a recommendation to pay between £1k to £3k. Har de har har.

But for my money it is too difficult to ignore the vulnerable WASPI rank-and-file, who gave up money and time that they didn't have to spare, to be led up the garden path for years by the very well-off leadership, for something between zero and sod-all.

Silvertabby

Malthusian said:

WASPI didn't exist one decade ago, let alone three. It was formed in 2016 after a campaign to reverse the 2011 Pensions Act (the further increase of State Pension Ages by up to 18 months) sank without trace. One of the those campaigners started a new campaign to reverse the 1995 Pensions Act (the equalisation from 60 to 65), which encompassed many more woman and promised them a much larger payout, and the rest is history.

The headline about the Omudsman recommending payouts of £1,000 - £2,950 is based on their finding that the failings identified represent level 4 on their "severity of injustice" scale. But what they have really done is kick it back to Parliament.

What DWP has told us during this investigation leads us to strongly doubt it will provide a remedy. Complainants have also told us they doubt DWP’s ability or intent to provide a remedy. Given the scale of the impact of DWP’s maladministration, and the urgent need for a remedy, we are taking the rare but necessary step of asking Parliament to intervene.

The full "Remedy" section of the report is so vague in its recommendation that an economist would be proud.

As a matter of principle, redress should reflect individual impact. But the numbers of people who have potentially suffered injustice because of the maladministration, the need for remedy to be delivered without delay, and the cost and administrative burden of assessing potentially millions of individual women’s circumstances may indicate the need for a more standardised approach. [...]

Parliament may want to consider a mechanism for assessing individual claims of injustice. Or it may consider a flat-rate payment would deliver more efficient resolution, recognising that will inevitably mean some women being paid more or less compensation than they otherwise would. We recognise the very significant cost to taxpayers of compensating all women affected by DWP’s maladministration. Compensating all women born in the 1950s at the level 4 range would involve spending between around £3.5 billion and £10.5 billion of public funds, though we understand not all of them will have suffered injustice. Our Principles for Remedy acknowledge that public bodies need to balance responding appropriately to people’s complaints and acting proportionately within available resources. But they also say finite resources should not be used as an excuse for failing to provide a fair remedy. 

Everyone got that? On the one hand it may be fair to compensate women affected individually, but on the other it may be better to create a flat-rate scheme. And the compensation should not be too much, but it should also not be too little. Over to Parliament.

The Tories were in power when both the 1995 and 2011 Acts were passed and don't seem very likely to propose compensation for failings that they will be considered on the hook for. While Starmer saw Corbyn jump on the WASPI bandwagon and promptly get enmeshed in its wreckage. WASPI's prospects in Parliament don't look promising. 

Actually, the issue in hand - DWPs failure to send out letters in a timely manner in the early 2000s - happened under a Labour Government.

booneruk

amykirk1996 said:

Marcon said:

@amykirk1996 - you might want to delete your completely irrelevant and unfriendly post.

It is totally relevant - due to those at the time who said WASPI were not entitled to anything and were a laughing stock. They're not laughing now, are they?

They're still not entitled to anything. What's happened today is only a recommendation

Malthusian

Silvertabby said:

Actually, the issue in hand - DWPs failure to send out letters in a timely manner in the early 2000s - happened under a Labour Government.

Indeed, that was the issue considered by the Ombudsman. I was referring to WASPI's campaign, which is against the passage of the 1995 Pensions Act which increased women's State Pension Age to from 60. That was under Major. The headlines claiming "victory for WASPI women" are conflating the two.

xylophone said:

• That said, I do find it strange that so many women claim ignorance. Did none of them have any older  female friends or relations (mothers, even) who mentioned that they were drawing their state pension later than they had originally expected?
  

I recommend reading the Ombudsman's stage 1 report which goes into detail about the DWP's polling in the 2000s, and how this showed how many women - not most women, but a significant proportion, around 33% - still incorrectly believed their SPA was 60 even after all the campaigns by the DWP. How these polling figures were stubbornly failing to move despite the DWP's efforts. And how the DWP identified ways to change this, but failed to act on them quickly enough for the Ombudsman's liking.

It is not very comfortable reading for those who believe that it's all on the individual to keep up with changes in law and find out what their SPA is. But it does illustrate the logic behind the Ombudsman's decision and their recommendation (woolly as it is) of £1k - £3k payouts. From the Ombudsman's perspective, the DWP knew there was a problem, tried to solve the problem, but failed to do it quickly enough. Lessons must be learned and those who lost out from that failing should be compensated. To the tune of low four figures. The Ombudsman are not taking an adversarial, tribal view of "WASPI are in the wrong, therefore they should get nothing".

molerat

Silvertabby said:

Actually, the issue in hand - DWPs failure to send out letters in a timely manner in the early 2000s - happened under a Labour Government.

And the hand grenade has been pretty much dropped back into the Labour benches, as unlikely anything will get done this parliament, who are already dropping current flagship policies as unaffordable.